Not really. I expected the sensor to be equivalent to the 5DII at most low ISO's, and better at higher ISO's. But if you go look at the comparisons at DPReview, the 5DIII looks equivalent, and maybe even softer even at ISO 100. And they used the RAW files and did an ACR conversioin...

So I took my 5DII and 5DIII into my studio, and shot some teddy bears at ISO 100. No need for tripod since strobes are used, but the framing wasn't exactly the same. Regardless, both showed great detail, the 5DIII looked a bit sharper actually, but that might have been the focus. It was more accurate at autofocuing on the teddy bear nose than my 5DII.

I also did some ISO 1600 or ISO3200 tests ( can't remember ) and both had plenty of noise, but the 5DIII images just looked better for some reason, more DR maybe, or better colors.I had a hard time pinpointing it, but my wife agreed.

Also, my wife and I just shot an engagement session together, she used the 5DII with 85 f/1.2LII and I used 5DIII with 70-200 f/2.8LII. She is processing the images and mentioned that the 5DIII images look better, but not dramatically or anything. That was an ISO100-400 shoot.

Anyway, I'm personally waiting for Canon to fix DPP so that we can see a review at www.the-digital-picture.com to see a more controlled test with proper processing.

Not really. I expected the sensor to be equivalent to the 5DII at most low ISO's, and better at higher ISO's. But if you go look at the comparisons at DPReview, the 5DIII looks equivalent, and maybe even softer even at ISO 100. And they used the RAW files and did an ACR conversioin...

So I took my 5DII and 5DIII into my studio, and shot some teddy bears at ISO 100. No need for tripod since strobes are used, but the framing wasn't exactly the same. Regardless, both showed great detail, the 5DIII looked a bit sharper actually, but that might have been the focus. It was more accurate at autofocuing on the teddy bear nose than my 5DII.

I also did some ISO 1600 or ISO3200 tests ( can't remember ) and both had plenty of noise, but the 5DIII images just looked better for some reason, more DR maybe, or better colors.I had a hard time pinpointing it, but my wife agreed.

Also, my wife and I just shot an engagement session together, she used the 5DII with 85 f/1.2LII and I used 5DIII with 70-200 f/2.8LII. She is processing the images and mentioned that the 5DIII images look better, but not dramatically or anything. That was an ISO100-400 shoot.

Anyway, I'm personally waiting for Canon to fix DPP so that we can see a review at www.the-digital-picture.com to see a more controlled test with proper processing.

Thank you aglet for the raw links... I am curious, with DPP's problems if it was set at fast or high quality processing and if that processing only effects 5d3 files or both 5d2 files also... Perhaps it could be even more different when canon releases the fix for DPP... then again maybe not. shizam, thanks for your input... so basically your saying the 5d3 is better but just not that much... That's fair enough and inline with what many have said already...

I personally do not notice any big difference under normal lighting. However, I have noticed better DR in difficult lighting, and, of course amazing ability to retain at least a usable amount of detail at ISO 25600.

I have posted numerous images with my 5D MK III that are in the forum. I'll be doing some AFMA of all my many lenses today with the beta version of FoCal Pro which now supports the 5D MK III

shizam1

...shizam, thanks for your input... so basically your saying the 5d3 is better but just not that much... That's fair enough and inline with what many have said already...

As far as image Quality, yes. AF is much snappier and more accurate ( though I had a weird slowness in a really dark environment ), and metering is maybe better as well. Not to mention the silent shutter is useful as well!

I personally do not notice any big difference under normal lighting. However, I have noticed better DR in difficult lighting, and, of course amazing ability to retain at least a usable amount of detail at ISO 25600.

I have posted numerous images with my 5D MK III that are in the forum. I'll be doing some AFMA of all my many lenses today with the beta version of FoCal Pro which now supports the 5D MK III

I'd say substantial! The 5D Mark II was an awesome sensor, but Canon has really hit this one out of the park in every possible way except for the price!

Ron thanks for your post.

I have trying to decide whether to add the 5D III to my kit or not. Careful work like your own - from a professional with no axe to grind is very helpful indeed.

There have been some questionable writers here ( including one complaining about the speed of auto focus on a shot that took 3 seconds to expose properly - talk about dark! ) who don't know much about technology or photography but are certainly panicked themselves or want to panic others with limited info. It is important to read widely to make an informed decision. The data and information is slowly coming in.

This new camera sounds great so far (and of course there are compromises) but I have to decide whether to plunge in now or wait to see if a 7D II is produced and better meets my needs.

I'd say substantial! The 5D Mark II was an awesome sensor, but Canon has really hit this one out of the park in every possible way except for the price!

This is certainly very interesting - and looking at the big iso100 difference, I noted your other raw processing link and your statement "However, if you are a 5D Mark II owner looking for a reason not to upgrade, then maybe this will make you feel much better" which puts everything in its place.

Am I understanding you correctly if what you're basically saying that updated software raw converters (dpp, adobe) will widen the gap between the 5d2 and 5d3?

I appreciate Ronmart's intent, and that of everyone here who spends their time and $ to provide us with more info. Hopefully we don't make many mistakes along the way and provide readers with useful insights.

The 5D3 is starting to look tempting enough for me to consider tossing my 5D2 and 7D which would get me one body with better AF and less noise for most of what I would do. STILL, I'm gonna wait for a while until DPP is completely shaken down and we have a full slate of consistent looking results from a variety of testing. Maybe the price will even drop a little by then, or they'll kit it with an improved 24-105mm or something else I don't have.

From my own results, the 5D3 is a noticeable improvement over the 5D2, tho still not enough to warrant it being the only tool in my kit. This aint flame-bait but I'm likely to still order a D800 to do some of my more critical shots; likely have to wait til sometime in September the way my guy's backordered!

I appreciate Ronmart's intent, and that of everyone here who spends their time and $ to provide us with more info. Hopefully we don't make many mistakes along the way and provide readers with useful insights.

The 5D3 is starting to look tempting enough for me to consider tossing my 5D2 and 7D which would get me one body with better AF and less noise for most of what I would do. STILL, I'm gonna wait for a while until DPP is completely shaken down and we have a full slate of consistent looking results from a variety of testing. Maybe the price will even drop a little by then, or they'll kit it with an improved 24-105mm or something else I don't have.

From my own results, the 5D3 is a noticeable improvement over the 5D2, tho still not enough to warrant it being the only tool in my kit. This aint flame-bait but I'm likely to still order a D800 to do some of my more critical shots; likely have to wait til sometime in September the way my guy's backordered!

Aglet, I can only say when you go to Nikon that we will all miss your constant writing on the low ISO banding crisis at Canon. You were way too patient with such a serious problem. What were you doing before joining on Feb 26th?